Winnipeg Cops lying through their teeth again...

AdamX wrote:these cops are nowhere near abusive, and acted totally in line here.

unfortunately joe public (which includes pretty much everyone on this forum) is ignorant of what they are really watching and how its actually playing out. Anyone with LEO training can pick this video apart and see the behaviours that are being displayed and exactly why the officers are responding the way they do.

but unfortunately most people dont have any sort of training or real life experience in this stuff, so all they see is knees and punches. (which i dont mean in a derogatory way either, its no ones fault if they lack training or knowledge of a certain topic)

you have to know what your looking at before you can pass judgment on a video like this.

Excuse me???? I hope the horse you be riding is a hobby-horse so that when you fall off of it your arse does not get bruised.

Does LEO training include sessions on arrogance?

I think it must judging by AdamX's response.

LMFAO, "you have to know what your looking at before you can pass judgment on a video like this"....that almost made me spit my coffee out. You don't need LEO training to figure out exactly what is going on. 6 officers pulled over a dumbass and administered some street justice before taking him in to the station. It's pretty obvious even for a layman......

JTF wrote:

Next he is going to tell us to not believe our lying eyes.

AdamX wrote: ...

unfortunately joe public (which includes pretty much everyone on this forum) is ignorant of what they are really watching...

.........you have to know what your looking at before you can pass judgment on a video like this.

What did I tell you? Fcuken cops are idiots.

freeman, I work as a nuclear security officer for AECL. so i am not on the WPS but i have trained with them, as well as with corrections officers, manitoba sheriffs, conservation officers, oceans and fisheries officers, RCMP, brandon ERT, morden and winkler police, and even a UN security guard from france once.

We use the RCMP incident model (of which i am currently an instructor for), as do most of the departments listed above, but the WPS one has only very slight differences.


so there is the reason that you should give me the benefit of the doubt that i know somewhat what i'm talking about when looking at an incident.

so heres a few things i want to point out about the video. i am looking at the one on the winnipeg free press website.

-first off, a few people have said that the officer is lying about the guy taking a swing at them.
we dont see the first few seconds of the encounter because its off camera to the right, this swing could have happened there. (maybe not, we dont know)

-with no sound, i have to assume that they were giving at least some of the verbal commands which they are trained for and which they claim to have used. Again, we dont know this for sure with no sound, but its a safe assumption which i will use on my analysis.

-at the point he enters the scene at around 0:04 he looks like he is listening to someone, so the officer at this point is likely telling him to get down on the ground, which he starts to do.

-i agree that the officer moved in a little fast to shove him down, as it seemed the guy was making his way down to the ground. This is likely the adrenaline of the chase and having almost been run over trying to stop this guy. Regardless, the bad guy goes to the ground.

-at 0:11 to 0:12 you can see that the man lands with his hands underneath him. It is important to see this and understand that he lands with his hands underneath him.

-at this point 0:12-0:14 as the officers move in, they are (likely) telling him to put his arms/hands out to the sides, or to put his arms/hands behind him. You can see the officer on the far side (bad guys right) at 0:14 is digging to try and grab the bad guys right arm. The guy on the near side throws a kick at 0:15, likely to try and loosen him up to get his arm out. Personally i think that kick is a little inappropriate and premature.

-So right now we have a guy who is holding his arms underneath him and not letting the officers pull them behind his back. I dont care who you are, if you are trying to get someones arms out from under them just by digging for them and trying to muscle them up, you will fail, or take a long time to do it. I know this from experience and its something i do to our new recruits during training quite often. Its damn near impossible without applying pain or a distraction in another way to loosen them up. If you cant accept this, go and actually try it with someone who is determined to keep their arms under them, dont just come on here and say that it should be easy.

-at about 0:18-0:19 another cop comes around to the bad guys head and reaches down for the bad guys left arm, and starts trying to pry the left arm up. the kicking guy backs off as he is putting something from his right hand away on his belt.

-they continue digging and trying to pry his arms up for the next 7'ish seconds.
again, if you have never done it, go and throw on an extra 20 pounds of gear and wrestle with someone before you say that this last 10-12 seconds is not a lot of time.

-at 0:27 the first knee strike is thrown by the cop near the head. the knee looks like it goes to the head. The other cops are still trying to pry out the arms. Verbal commands at this point if they are happening are something like "Stop resisting!" "give us your arms/hands!" etc. Once the strikes start happening, its my experience that officers start to forget the verbal commands in the effort of fighting.

-for the next few seconds they continue trying to pry out the arms, the strikes arent thrown again until 0:33 when the guy at the head starts punching. so at this point they have been wrestling with the guy for 20-22 seconds or so. Again dont give me crap that this is a short time, its a very long time to be wrestling with someone. (sit and count to 20 and imagine for that length of time straining all your muscles with adrenaline going and breathing hard and trying to remember to give clear commands and worrying about whether he is grabbing for a knife or gun from his beltline)

-at 0:33 they start throwing more strikes, trying to loosen the guy up enough to get in and get his arms out. Whether you agree with this or not, its the way they are trained. they need to apply some sort of force in order to get the guy to stop resisting. If you have a better way to do it, then by all means voice that opinion. I can think of a few things that i'd have done differently to loosen him up, but they decided to use knees and punches.

-Its about 0:52 where the bad guys left arm finally comes out. pause it there and you can see the cop on the near side reach down to grab the arm as it comes out from underneath him. from 0:52 to 0:55 you can see him reach down to grab the arm, stand up a little to make room for it, you can see him twist the arm up around to behind the guys back, and then the cop comes back down to his knees.

-Notice that as soon as the arm is out at 0:52 that the strikes stop. this is because they served their purpose, there is no reason now to throw strikes.

-between 0:57 and 1:02 the cop on the near side is putting the handcuffs on.
Notice that all the cops are sitting there just holding the guys arms behind him. again, there is no reason to strike him any more and so they are not striking him.

-at 1:03 the cuffs are on. there is no longer any reason to have weight on him, and so the cops start standing up off of him. Notice that as soon as the cuffs are on they are pretty quick to get their weight off of him. This is important becuase the guy needs to be able to breathe. its one of the things a lot of our recruits forget to do.

from that point on its checking him over doing their search, the normal stuff, and from what i've read, they took him straight to the hospital.

now.

if the media is to be beleived, this guy was restrained on the ground and the cops were just beating him up for no reason.

but, looking at it and seeing exactly when those handcuffs actually went on, we can see that at the very second his arm finally came out and he was under control, there was no striking and really no force at all other than to get the cuffs on him.

As to whether or not its appropriate to use knees and punches to loosen someone up to get their arms out, i guess thats debateable (like i said i would have gone a slightly different route). But saying they are just beating on him for no reason is just ignorant.

i'm obviously not going to change anyones mind and i dont expect to, but at least get some frickin clue as to what you are actually looking at before you just jump on the anti-cop bandwagon.

Hey. I don't think anyone said they were beating on him for no reason. I think what they said was they were just beating on him.

I appreciate you taking the time to try to edumacate me. But I'm afraid you've not yet succeeded.

You see, there were 6 cops. Was there real danger to them posed by the bad guy while lying prone on the ground?

Incidentally, I can't recall a post that said the police lied about the bad guy taking a swing at them. In fact, I think the point was Law lied when he said they only beset upon him after he refused to comply. The video so refutes that claim....

I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt AdamX and viewed the video once again. How anyone can defend the actions of those officers as standard operating procedure is beyond me. Unless... SOP is to beat the bejesus outta of the bad guy while prone on the ground.

By the way, I'm not fricken anti-cop. I'm fricken anti-bad-cop. The chiefs' nephew is a menace to society. Take his gun and badge away before he kills someone.

Great reply Adam. Very informative. Just one more question, if they were only beating on him to gain compliance untill they cuffed him them why the reports of the suspect being tasered twice? Apparently this didn't make it on video and it would imply that they tasered him after he was cuffed. Is that appropriate as well?

Is it just me or did they edit the article to remove the tasering comment? I could have sworn they said tasered twice originally but don't see it now.

You left out at 0:08, why the cop in the lower half gives the guy a little sissy kick to the ribs, then wanders around like a lost sheep.

Was the heavy police repsonse anything to do with the fact that there is a Tim Hortons next door the the scene?

damn sugar.....

By seriously, this is exactly the problem. While, we sandboxers have the ability, and even perhaps the god given right, to speculate on what has happened and pass judgement before the situation is investigated, others (I'm referring to AdamX) have immediately acquitted the police of any wrongdoing.

The statement that, as we have no training and are therefore ignorant, eludes to a mentality which exists. If this were to ever to to trial, it would be an interesting defence that the jurors were too ignorant to view the video and make an informed decision.

Quite frankly, I'm not at all concerned that the little sh1t got a few knocks out of the deal, but for crissake, why did they have to do on camera? Can you say credibility, boys and girls,...thats right.

AdamX wrote:you are ignorant, in this.

do you have LEO training of any sort? do you know the model they follow that determines which behaviour warrants which response options?

if you dont then you are ignorant of this topic.. how can you argue that?

and if you are ignorant of the topic you dont really know what you are watching.

i could break this video down for you second by second and explain whats actually happening and their likely reasoning, but you just see 6 cops beating a guy, so chances are i wouldnt change your mind.

The video is what it is. I see 6 cops using excessive force, and beating a guy who is not resisting arrest. If this is how LE was trained to deal with a situation such as this, obviously the system needs a complete overhaul.

Adam is saying that we shouldn't believe what we see, as our eyes are not capable of seeing things the way they really are, and therefore, we shouldn't believe the lying little orbs.

Is there any wonder that cops, or security guards or whatever, are idiots after the crap that was posted?

JTF wrote:Adam is saying that we shouldn't believe what we see, as our eyes are not capable of seeing things the way they really are, and therefore, we shouldn't believe the lying little orbs.

Is there any wonder that cops, or security guards or whatever, are idiots after the crap that was posted?

thats what the RCMP kept saying during the killing of the Polish guy. And then an inquiry finds.... well they were not so truthful

Whats the difference between a nuclear security officer and any other kind of security officer?

The nuclear guards have a much lower sperm count.

Also, they don't need flashlights after a while.

And on and on it goes...

Drunk cop crashes motorbike, gets fined

His blood-alcohol level was nearly triple the legal limit. He was driving his motorcycle into oncoming traffic. He crashed into the median, injuring both himself and his helmetless female passenger.

And he walked away with a $1,500 fine, a one-year licence suspension and continued employment as a Winnipeg police officer.

The facts of Const. Daniel Aminot's August 2009 guilty plea to impaired driving and sentencing have not been reported until now. But the case is stirring debate about whether police officers should be held to a different standard than other citizens -- and forfeit their badge if convicted of a crime.

Officially, Winnipeg police will only tell the Free Press Aminot remains on "active duty" since the conclusion of his case. Given the fact a judge took away his right to drive until this coming summer, it's presumed he's behind a desk.

Police Chief Keith McCaskill declined a request from the Free Press to comment about the specific process followed in this case.

The case was originally set for trial later this year, only to be brought forward and placed on a docket with dozens of others last August for a sudden guilty plea and sentencing. That helped it escape media coverage and public scrutiny -- until the Free Press learned about it last week.

Read story here.

So we have a repeat alleged abuser (McCaskill's nephew, Law) and a convicted drunk driver still working as police officer's. I wonder how many other horror story's still wear a WPS badge?

I wonder how many other horror story's still wear a WPS badge?

If you ask me, it's looking more and more like the majority.

grumpy old man wrote:
The facts of Const. Daniel Aminot's August 2009 guilty plea to impaired driving and sentencing have not been reported until now. But the case is stirring debate about whether police officers should be held to a different standard than other citizens -- and forfeit their badge if convicted of a crime.

Officially, Winnipeg police will only tell the Free Press Aminot remains on "active duty" since the conclusion of his case. Given the fact a judge took away his right to drive until this coming summer, it's presumed he's behind a desk.

Police Chief Keith McCaskill declined a request from the Free Press to comment about the specific process followed in this case.

The case was originally set for trial later this year, only to be brought forward and placed on a docket with dozens of others last August for a sudden guilty plea and sentencing. That helped it escape media coverage and public scrutiny -- until the Free Press learned about it last week.

Read story here.

What I find interesting from that article, one could imply that the WPS is hiding these details from the media, weather it's the individual officers or the WPS advising them, they appear to be going to lengths to make sure the media doesn't find out, or the WPS doesn't get embarassed...

Perhaps some sunlight disinfectant would be a better policy...same goes for the RCMP...instead of playing hide the error...admit the error, and take corrective actions...be PRO-active instead of RE-active.

Just my ignornat, taxpaying, civilian $0.02... !!

Ahh but JT... your civilian 2 cents would jump to about 20 cents if ALL governments agents were PRO active and admited fault where fault was due. Why? Because of alot more payoffs

hmm, the funny thing is that every person looks at a video and sees something different.,
some people here look at it and see a guy just lying there and say "how could he be resisting arrest??"

others like myself look at it and see that he is resisting strongly. others look and see something different.
i can see exactly where he gets handcuffed, and i can see exactly how he is resisting, and i see that the cops did not use any force at all once he stopped resisting and the handcuffs went on.

its not arrogance for me to say that i know what i'm looking at and you dont, i dont get mad at people who know things i dont

Adam is saying that we shouldn't believe what we see, as our eyes are
not capable of seeing things the way they really are, and therefore, we
shouldn't believe the lying little orbs.

Is there any wonder that cops, or security guards or whatever, are idiots after the crap that was posted?

let me give you an example, and you tell me if i'm wrong.

lets say a video was taken of a couple guys building a house. These guys are lazy and just want to get it done so they take a bunch of shortcuts and use sub-par materials, dont do anything to code, etc.

if i was to watch that video, i would just see a house being built. i dont know anything about the codes or building a house. I would say "hey, those guys got it done nice and fast, and it looks like a house, good job!"

someone who had experience building houses, or who knew what they were looking at in terms of codes and such, would see a very different video.

agree or disagree?

that person might try to point out to me what is wrong with the house i'm seeing, and wehre the builders screwed up. Who would be the ignorant one? the person trying to give me the right perspective? or me for saying "nope, your an idiot, this is obviously a fine house, i watched the whole video of them building it!"

The nuclear guards have a much lower sperm count.

Also, they don't need flashlights after a while.

true, but it gets to be a pain in the ass pulling down my pants every time it gets dark

"true, but it gets to be a pain in the ass pulling down my pants every time it gets dark "

well aint your partner lucky

Let me first state that I agree that Police Officers shouldn't become thugs, but I really didn't see this beating as being all that offensive. It's wrong, yes, but given the uproar, I was expecting something of the Rodney King variety.

I find the other charge against Law of beating up jailed prisoner Henry Lavallee more offensive and disgusting.